To critics of Occupy Wall Street, one of its most glaring weakness is the lack of specific demands. To many supporters, that ambiguity is one of the main foundations of the movement's success. But now an attempt to agree just one demand is creating new tensions between the protesters in lower Manhattan.

On Tuesday night they will hold what could be one of the most controversial mass meetings at Zuccotti Park so far when the general assembly discusses whether the movement should officially call for a massive public works programme with government employment, paid for by ending all of America's overseas military operations.

The substance of the demand is not the subject of the controversy. Rather, it is the principle of adopting a demand, and the process for doing so, that have opened a rift between "purists", who favour consensus-building, and those now arguing for majority rule on some decisions.

Kenneth Lipp, an activist who has been with Occupy Wall Street since day one, accuses those in the working group set up to develop the demand of bypassing the system set up to give everyone a voice.

The group has proposed that issues discussed in the general assembly are taken up if two-thirds agree, rather than a consensus. "What they are talking about in the demands group is circumventing the consensus process that has been built up," said Lipp. "We strongly disagree with that. We strongly disagree with any demands being made. If they are going to be done, then they have to be reached by consensus."

He is among several protesters who disagree with the methods used by the demands group.

An anonymous message, posted on the website Pastebin above email exchanges between individuals in the demands group, accuses them of ignoring "serious moral objections" of others in the group to put forward their views. The message states: "This email is from a group attempting to circumvent the system we have created at Occupy Wall Street."

Other issues have emerged that have divided activists in the movement. A suggestion, for instance, that the Occupy Wall Street wall be used to sell advertising to fund the movement and that the "war-chest" or donations be used to fund an office with six full-time campaigners have horrified some protesters.

"There are bigger and bigger schisms. Not at the general assembly, but around," said Lipp. "I hate to say I'm a purist, but I don't want Obama's endorsement, I don't want his word. Some people wanted to sell ads on the Occupy Wall Street wall. They wanted to use the war chest to fund an apartment for six full-time activists."

One of the members of the demands working group, identified as Shawn Redden, writes: "Our first struggle is a struggle against those in the movement who have no understanding of history and think demands are a bad idea."

It continues: "Let 'them' oppose the people's demands. Let Ketchup Soros and the others join up with the 0.1% in opposing our demands and we'll see how long they'll be able to strangle the GA."

Han Shan, a media spokesman from OWS, said: "I understand why people would want demands. It's just a personal opinion, but I think it is a strategic error. I might agree with every one of their demands but it is a separate issue."

"We've been here for a month. Because of that, we have lost a certain amount of patience. We have to start the hard work of movement-building. We haven't begun the process of working with the people who feel that this movement has given voice to their outrage about economic injustice. This has been a flashpoint. But we don't have a real economic justice movement that can get real change. We need to do the work of movement building first."

However, Jay Arena, a member of the Demands Working Group, shrugged off the disagreement in the OWS camp. He said: "It's one email, there's no big uproar. This is an open movement. Is everybody on board? No, but that's what debate is all about."

"I'm a Katrina survivor. We've been clamouring for this. A mass public works government employment, like they had in the 1930s. The group has agreed to this. We democratically voted for it. This is the one demand we could get behind."

"We are inspired by the uprisings in the Middle East. They had one demand: that the regime must go. Not everybody is behind them but that's what debate is."